Brooks: Democrats are “making a terrible mistake” on contempt, destroying checks and balances

Via Instapundit:

This constitutional crisis is just for show. Partly the Democrats want the show because it just feels good to bash the administration. “This has had a cathartic effect on the Democrats because we have finally been able to find a way to fight back at the obstructionism,” Representative Jamie Raskin told my Times colleague Sheryl Gay Stolberg.

Partly they are trying to appease the wing of the party that is calling for impeachment right away. The party leaders generally opposed impeachment for sensible reasons. It would be impossible to win a conviction in the Senate without some Republican cooperation and overwhelming popular support — which doesn’t exist. It’s much better for the Democrats if they focus media attention on their presidential candidates. A Trump vs. Nadler media war is exactly what Trump wants.

The problem with any policy of appeasement is that it rarely appeases; it only emboldens. And that’s what’s happening. You can feel the atmosphere in the Democratic Party changing, getting more passionate, getting more caught up in the back-and-forth combat with Trump, getting more whipped up into impeachment furor.

"It's a Mistake" is a song by the Australian band Men at Work... The song's lyrics deal with the mindset of military men across the world in the 1980s, wondering if and when the democratic countries of NATO and the communist states of the Warsaw Pact will end the Cold War standoff with conventional battle or a nuclear exchange.  Hay sings in the persona of a mid-level officer wishing to learn from his superiors if his men are going to war or not.

KLEM FM

John Brennan responds to Trump:


Check this out on Chirbit

AllenS Foto Funnies:

 

"Trump insults 'short and fat' (and nuclear-armed) Kim Jong Un"

Via MSN News: President Trump took time off from his morning in Vietnam to exchange insults with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

"Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me 'old,'/ when I would NEVER call him 'short and fat?'" Trump said during a Sunday morning tweet storm in Hanoi that included a defense of his recent meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Trump added: "Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!"

What do you think is the Trump strategery here?

"Maxine Waters Is Encouraging More People to Leak Confidential Info From the White House"

Link

Via Instapundit

Russian Hands & Roman Fingers

On the one hand are the Russians said by the left to be undermining the US. On the other hand (right...left?) is the Pope, now openly opposed to Trump's immigration policy. Other say it's just the media writing who want us to feel a certain way. They want us to feel groped and manipulated.

Maybe it will work next time...

I drew this.

Trump at the pool

Peggy Noonan: Trump Was a Spark, Not the Fire

Excerpts from the Wall Street Journal...

But the media did not make Donald Trump’s allure, his allure made for big ratings. Mr. Trump was a draw from the beginning. If anyone had wanted to listen to Jeb Bush, cable networks would have been happy to show his rallies, too.

When Mr. Trump was on, ratings jumped, but it wasn’t only ratings, it was something else. It was the freak show at its zenith, it was great TV—you didn’t know what he was going to say next! He didn’t know! It was better than everyone else’s boring, prefabricated, airless, weightless, relentless word-saying—better than Ted Cruz, who seemed like someone who practiced sincere hand gestures in the mirror at night, better than Marco the moist robot, better than Hillary’s grim and horrifying attempts to chuckle like a person who chuckles.

And it was something else. TV producers were all sure he’d die on their show. They weren’t for Mr. Trump. By showing him they were revealing him: Look at this fatuous dope, see through him! They knew he’d quickly enough say something unforgivable, and if he said it on their air he died on their show! They took him down with the question! It was only after a solid six months of his not dying that they came to have qualms. They now understood they were helping him. Nothing he says is unforgivable to his supporters! Or, another way to put it, his fans would forgive anything so long as he promised to be what they want him to be, a human bomb that will explode by timer under a bench in Lafayette Park and take out all the people but leave the monuments standing....

The Trump phenomenon itself would normally be big enough for any political cycle, but another story of equal size isn’t being sufficiently noticed and deserves mention. The Democratic base has become more liberal—we all know this part—but in a way the Republican base has, too. Or rather it is certainly busy updating what conservative means. The past few months, in state after state, one thing kept jumping out at me in primary exit polls. Democrats consistently characterize themselves as more liberal than in 2008, a big liberal year. This week in Indiana, 68% of Democratic voters called themselves liberal or very liberal. In 2008 that number was 39%. That’s a huge increase.

In South Carolina this year, 53% of Democrats called themselves very or somewhat liberal. Eight years ago that number was 44%—again, a significant jump. In Pennsylvania, 66% of respondents called themselves very or somewhat liberal. That number eight years ago was 50%.

The dynamic is repeated in other states. The Democratic Party is going left.

But look at the Republican side. However they characterize themselves, a majority of GOP voters now are supporting the candidate who has been to the left of the party’s established thinking on a host of issues—entitlement spending, trade, foreign policy. Mr. Trump’s colorfully emphatic stands on immigration have been portrayed as so wackily rightist that the nonrightist nature of his other, equally consequential positions has been obscured.

In my observation it is a mistake to think Mr. Trump’s supporters are so thick they don’t know his stands. They do.

It does not show an understanding of the moment to say Donald Trump by himself has changed the Republican Party. It is closer to the mark to say the base of the party is changing and Mr. Trump’s electric arrival on the scene made obvious what was already happening.

For this reason among others, I do not understand the impulse of the NeverTrump people to anathametize and shun those Republicans who will not vow to oppose Mr. Trump and commit to defeating him. They have been warned that if they don’t do these things they will not be allowed to help rebuild the party after Mr. Trump destroys it. Conservatives love to throw conservatives out of conservatism; it’s like an ancestral tic. But great political movements should not be run like private clubs. And have the anathemitizers noticed they aren’t in charge anymore? That in the great antiestablishment disruption of 2016 they have been upended, too?....

Finally, can Mr. Trump win? Of course. Uphill but possible. If this year has taught us anything it is what Harrison Salisbury said he’d learned from a lifetime in journalism: “Expect the unexpected.”

Melissa Young, Trump

Melissa Young is onetime Miss Wisconsin. Gravely ill, dying, she delivered an emotional statement of gratitude to Trump for something he did that lifted her spirit at a critical time. She appeared at the town hall to say this when he showed up in Wisconsin for his campaign.

I caught this moment by chance on YouTube. I didn't see much, but I did see this.  The comments picked up and spun by far too fast to read. Women cried. A lot. Others commenters were using emoji symbols of bricks to form walls, A wall being their comment. A lot of energized nonsense.

Comments to this Daily Mail piece are uncharacteristically compassionate and reasonable. Women say they cried. 

Antitrumpites recall a story about ghost of Trump Past denying, some say withdrawing, his own nephew's medication or healthcare or insurance or pulled the plug on his life support, depending on the version. 

¿Dónde está Trump?

I tuned into FOX today, muted, I saw stage, American flags people sitting in chairs having a discussion hosted by Hannity it seemed and Perry holding forth presumably on why Cruz is candidate most reasonable to choose. Turned it off.

Later checked Fox and saw the same stage with Fiorina holding forth presumably on why Cruz is most reasonable candidate.

And I thought something so rude you would think less of me for relating it. But the fact is, it was something a woman said that had me laughing so hard because it came from a woman. You just don't hear that kind of talk from ladies and that's why she makes a fine lawyer.

I had a Trump Jones. Then I thought media realized they're stoking the flames and putting profit aside for the best of the country they had better stop feeding the dragon. Strangle it of oxygen instead. That's what it seemed like enduring the dearth of Trump today.

Then I checked to see how to spell Hannity and top of results "TUNE IN: Trump Talks 'Professional Disruptors' with Hannity in Full-Hour Special on Monday" and there went my whole theory.

I am a unifyer

Smearballs made this. 

Trump wins South Carolina

Trump won by a lot but the gap is closing. Rubio just ahead of Cruz this time.

Bush bows out in one of the classiest performances to be seen of the season. Reminding me that whatever and all else I don't care for about them, they really are a graceful patrician family.

Mickey Kaus says on Twitter that he doesn't like watching videos, they take too many seconds. But whatever we think of Trump, this one is pretty powerful.

He links to Maxine Runner's upload of two minute Trump ad that begins with Beck lauding Trump and runs through campaign images time-lapse style except a lot more jolting.  And it is powerful.

I hope you can see this video of Trump's ad here. If it's the sort of thing that you like.

Powerful as it is, my mind still wandered. I was thinking, those baseboards sure are clean. I used dishwasher soap to make the water slippery and you should have seen the dirt that came up. Oi. Now they shine. I got all the way around the spots that never get touched even to the end through the laundry where lint collects in there. Just thinking that took a minute and by then the video had ended. But it sure sounded powerful.

Nikki Haley's response to Donald Trump

Moe Lane writing for Red State describes Nikki Haley's post SOTU speech as focusing mostly on Trump for being the nearest concern to GOP and much less so on Obama who is less a concern to them presently. It's a good observation for people who listened to it. He lists three bullet points within Haley's speech signaling to Trump that after Iowa and New Hampshire come South Carolina and Haley has no intention of making it easy for him there.

The bullet points Moe Lane pulls seem easily walked over. They seem innocuous, mere signals.

•  “Today, we live in a time of threats like few others in recent memory. During anxious times, it can be tempting to follow the siren call of the angriest voices. We must resist that temptation.”

• “In many parts of society today, whether in popular culture, academia, the media, or politics, there’s a tendency to falsely equate noise with results.”

• “Some people think that you have to be the loudest voice in the room to make a difference. That is just not true. Often, the best thing we can do is turn down the volume. When the sound is quieter, you can actually hear what someone else is saying. And that can make a world of difference.”

Response to Moe Lane's response to Nickki Haley's response to SOTU, the ostensible point of discussion.

1)  It's not "a time of threats" nor "anxious time" that are tempting the clarion call, not siren call, rather, it's abject absence of representation. Misidentified problem there, misidentified characterization of the call. And it's not the angriest voices either, it's regular voices and even tempered voices. And no, there is no good reason to avoid the temptation of something better than your party that's become useless in checking the crazy. Acknowledging some party responsibility elsewhere in the speech doesn't cut it. 

2) Agreed, falsely equating noise with results in all those areas listed is exactly why your party is deemed useless and all those areas listed no longer trusted. 

3) Is Trump loud? It's not the loudest voice, rather the clearest and most sensible messaging that addresses directly the areas of neglected concern. Trump is hardly "loudest" it just seems that way to the party candidates drowned out by not addressing areas of concern and talking about other things instead. And often the best thing to do is not turn down the volume but hit mute instead or turn the channel or shut the noise off as when the Republican party is b.s.ing again. We have heard what both parties are saying and reject it. Stop telling people to listen to people who don't listen and then process incorrectly and communicate nonsense like your party, and like these elements within your speech. 

I understand Nikki Haley gave a good speech. Loyal Republicans liked it. Their analysis has a lot to do with her being a fine new image for Republican party sorely in need a change in image. Always image.

Bill again

Him again. Some people don't die, it seems. It seems to someone who's seen others much younger and, frankly, better than himself die. I sense Bill Clinton would just as soon not be dragged out but doesn't mind that much that he is. He can handle it. There's a lot to like, actually, if you can compartmentalize.

Kurt Schlichter asked somebody to Photoshop Bill Clinton in Bill Cosby's "Friend" sweater, the primary color children's thing he wore everywhere that looks very creepy in retrospect, and just like that somebody did. Not me. Turns out funny as you can imagine. Hasn't caught on though as a meme yet. [bill clinton, friend] Nothing. Except a lot of really good Bill Clinton photos. It's a fine photoset, but no Cosby sweater. Maybe I should make another and start a proper meme.

I woke up at a ridiculous hour, the television on, I un-muted and heard political analysts discussing the fairness, mostly unfairness, of Trump attacking Bill Clinton (by mentioning there's a good deal of room to work with there) and their concerns, their considerations, the questions they asked were so ridiculous they cannot even be recalled exactly any more than fog can be recalled.

I am struck by their insistence on having confusion, making confusion on purpose. When one bothers to listen and process, as I do when waking up and vulnerable, they're saying, "Let's you and I get lost in the weeds together."

But no. I'm waking up and have more sense than that. Let's not. There is a set of undeniable universally recognized salient facts bearing hard on the subject at hand, and no need at all for allowing distracting entries. They come pre-culled to essentials with non-essentials rejected.

The facts sit there collected as if fenced in. A set. They can be observed and considered and spoken about directly and with no intervening agency. There is no reason to mount a rocket and observe the corral from space. No reason to dig under the corral and describe the view of it from center of the earth. No reason to wear comic book x-ray glasses.  No reason to set up funhouse mirrors around the corral and analyze and then discuss the warped images that come off them as these men do. No need for kaleidoscope, so knock it off.

* Bill Clinton is a serial sexual abuser
* Hillary Clinton enabled this brutal activity viciously over decades
* Attitudes about all this have changed dramatically in the intervening years
* Presently the general attitude is pretty close to zero tolerance
* Hillary is presently campaigning for  president of United States and adds women's protection to her platform.
* Hillary attacked Trump for a tendency to attack women.

If there's more, there isn't much more that is salient, you can if you want to confuse it, but then be confused. There's a lot more details, a ton of ammunition. I must say, it's been delightful seeing this arise and seeing Trump squash it in an instant and then see that squashing analyzed agonizingly for days from every angle imaginable except straightforwardly.

That's the job of journalism regarding political matters, I guess, to get and keep people confused.

Could Trump be doing this? Could Trump be doing that? Does Trump have a leg to stand on when ... Could it be that Hillary thinks...? Should  Bill just .... ? The reporters, journalists, analysts, pundits, whatever, mouths flapping, turned themselves inside out tunneling around to avoid facing the obvious corralled plain facts.

They're too ugly. The facts are wholly uncomfortable, cannot be stared down, so, fog. Such a flopping losing thing. There is not enough fog in the world to obfuscate what these two creeps have already done and recorded for history, and it's not just me thinking this, not my opinion, as proof for yourself just google (images) "bill clinton, friend."

Christians must speak out against Donald Trump's Muslim remarks

Yeah, yeah, yeah, thanks Mr. Civics Lesson for telling us again all about what is unAmerican while recovering from government busting a move on socializing healthcare and medicine, a move years in the making, led by president vowed to fundamentally change America. We're all so open to being told who and what we are supposed to be.

Let's be friends. You're talking about Trump again and you know he's 100% deal making type. Let's consider this opening bid. So the final deal ends up closer to reasonable, nearer to acceptable and leave it at that. And we'll have this understanding to ourselves while keeping in mind that here is Russell Moore bossing around Christians presuming they're all sheep of a flock as they say without minds of their own and in need of reminder about who and what they are, and with someone else's assessment of competing hazards. Were they sheep of a flock without minds of their own and easily led then they can be just as easily convinced to take up arms and apply for concealed carry. The Christians don't need to follow anyone's political advice. 

Trump denies mocking disabled reporter, demands apology

The photo shows Trump's left hand up like swear on Bible and right arm bent at the elbow with hand left to flop at his rib, his mouth is open and with no audio at all you can still hear Trump's voice, "You should see the guy." Yes, he his clearly imitating whatever it was he saw.

Trump's critics display a photo of the NYT journalist that Trump is imitating. The two postures match perfectly.

Am I bad for cracking up laughing?

The item on Hot Air has 889 comments to it presently and that had me laughing all over again. I haven't actually read any of it. Just those two photos. The guy puts me in stitches.

"I don't think it's got anything to do with American anger at the elites.

He (Trump) has no communication strategy -- except to be what he has always been, a nasty mean person criticizing people and doing, you know, silly kind of showman stuff. Where did he get a national reputation? From 'The Apprentice,'What did he do on 'The Apprentice?' He fired people."

It doesn't have anything to do with American anger, but Trump is famous for firing people. So for this Democrat it cannot possibly be the first thing he said leads to the last thing he said, they'e so angry they want everyone fired and Trump fires people without compunction, no, it must be something else. A mean vein.

He tapped a vein, you see, of meanness, that doesn't exist outside that one strange troublesome evil throbbing vein that Trump managed to pinpoint and tap.  

This is huge Democrat supporter Barry Diller telling us why he does not respect Republican candidate Trump and delivering the hyperbole on why he'll be leaving the country if Donald Trump wins the White House, as we heard so many times in reaction to Bush and actually done under Obama, and readers are thinking as they read this attractive threat, "Don't tempt us."  Diller does exactly what Diller complains about in Trump. plank, eye, mote, etc.

Join the thousands of wealthy who already did just that, Diller, and it had nothing to do with Trump. Your loyalty and your affection for your country are showing.

Bloomberg

And for some reason Drudge finds this interesting enough to place in large typeface centered on his front page. Drudge wants us to know what this Democrat supporter thinks about a Republican candidate. Why? Drudge knows none of us care.

We'll wait to observe Drudge center front the opinion of, say, David Koch on Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders.

I believe Drudge is signaling time to get serious and stop messing around. Trump said something on an interview about conservative objection to eminent domain being based on their ignorance and their innate resistance to progress. I wonder why Drudge didn't link to that. Among the conservative writers I follow this is the latest daily Trump-damning revelation that must be talked about all night long. Each writer doing Trump eminent domain posts all night long. Like therapy. Until every aspect, every angle examined, every previous statement reexamined, and posted on and on and on through the night, a project is made of leading the pack away from Trump. It's obnoxious because Trump supporters cannot be budged and sensible people are just watching.

As if ANY of that could possibly matter to Trump supporters while Mitch McConnell and Boehner's protégé are still present, as stated so clearly and repeatedly, their intention is destroy the GOP. And can you blame them?

T

Source: News Item regarding present GOP candidates, the things they say.

anchor babies

For a minute there I thought before correcting myself, "Hey, your own grandparents are anchor babies. Trump would have their U.S. citizenship not recognized."

That's kind of funny.

But no. They were more like grappling hook adults. Both grandparents on one side, and I don't know about the other. The other grandparents spoke German at home, they undoubtedly did the same thing. The English that these grandparents spoke is accented so heavily it is incomprehensible to American children.

The dispute with Ramos about anchor babies being a derogatory term is nonsense, what ridiculous misdirection that doesn't even apply to the Latino situation that parallels my own family's experience. The term applies to coming here during late term pregnancy specifically to drop a baby in an American hospital for the purpose of it being granted automatic citizenship then returning to wherever and with no real intention of pursuing citizenship the regular way by assimilation, no actual acknowledging U.S. laws or submitting to its jurisprudence save for that one clever trick, and to be used however U.S. citizenship can be advantaged in the future in a rapidly changing world. You never know. Latinos don't do much of that. Ramos burst into opposition caucus with his fury over nothing that applies to him nor to his program of destroying America through abuse and neglect and misreading of its constitution and its laws. One last thing, how typically liberal to instruct us which terms are forbidden for us to use. Burst into opposition caucus and attempt to control its language. Language instruction rejected.

Tweets tonight are pointing out comically how Trump is demonstrating how it really is possible to have people escorted outside and then permitted back in the right way politely and with gratitude.